Take a pick and roll, Monta Ellis and Jeff Adrien, they're just going to double or trap Monta coming off of that with no respect for Adrien's roll or pop. Run that same play but make the big setting the screen Dirk or Duncan or somebody. Now defenders can't help off of him, they have to decide if they're staying home or switching, might even commit a 3rd defender to the play and make everyone else rotate over.

It's ****ing well chronicled that having more good teammates make it easier and increases efficiency in most cases. Look at the Boston Big 3. Again, more threats so lots of single coverage and open looks. Look at Dirk and his career high fg% now with what might be the best team he has had. Look at how much better players are alongside Nash or Kidd and then disappear on other teams.

What abou the Boston big 3? Besides the fact that their PPG all went way down.

Or maybe we can bring up the most recent Big 3 conglomeration. Wade, LeBron, and Bosh. Is their efficency up? Or is it down? It's down, by a large amount. How about their PPG? Way down.

Give me one example, I'll give you another. Citing off one time where FG% or whatever went slightly up is negated by all the times it goes down. Well-chronicled my ass.

Meanwhile, the big, well-established fact here, is that PPG goes DOWN when you're shipped to a better team. It almost never remains the same. We can use your precious Celtics example.

Allen year before Celtics: 26.4 PPG. With Celtics: 17.4
KG year before Celtics: 22.4 PPG. With Celtics: 18.8.
Pierce year before they joined: 25 PPG. With them: 19.6.

Please show me when an established star switched teams and had his PPG actually go up.

It's a well-known fact that stars on shitty teams get more PPG because they get more shots. When they go to better teams, their PPG goes down. Why? Their FGAs go down. Those two thing are directly related.

Meanwhile, an established star switching teams does not magically garner a massive 8.6% raise in scoring efficiency. That is unprecidented.

So you tell me what's more likely. Monta Ellis switching teams and suddenly start shooting 9% above his career scoring efficiency, or Monta Ellis switching teams to a winning ballclub and having his PPG drop due to lowered FGAs on a winning ballclub that has scoring in more than 2-3 places.

Other than FG%, Manu destroys him in every efficiency category, which added up, makes him clearly the more efficient scorer.

Sure, Ellis is shooting 1.9% better in FG%, but Manu's Ginobili's eFG% is .549 to Ellis' .507. 4.2% better. This means, when taking the same amount of shots in a game, Ginobili scores more points. Why? He takes more threes, and makes them at a higher rate. Then factor in FT% as well. Ellis: A pathetic 71% FT shooter. He's like a PF at the line. Tim Duncan's FT% is 71%. Monta Ellis shoots FTs as well as Tim Duncan. Ginobili's FT%: 91%. Among the best in the NBA.

Put it all together with TS%, and you come out with:

Ellis: .542.
Ginobili: .626

Nearly 10% better for Manu.

And Manu's had a few off games in a row to make those averages closer than they were a week ago.

Then extrapolate their attempts.

Manu: 20.1 PPG on 13.5 FGAs.

Ellis: 24.5 PPG on 20 FGAs.

First of all, you bolded Monta Ellis's inferior 3pt% for some reason. All Ellis has is more: MPG, FGAs, PPG, SPG. Everything else is lower. His PPG is only higher as a direct result in taking 6.5 more shots a game. His efficiency is clearly much lower. His SPG are better, but again, 7.4 more minutes played.

Manu's impact while on the floor is much higher than Monta Ellis'. Ellis simply plays longer and racks up some extra stats in the process. This is reflected in their stats per minute.

Also, explain to me how playing on a top notch team bolsters a player who's main role is scoring's stats. Explain to me how SA's balanced offense bolster's Manu's numbers. I'd love to hear it, because scoring is the one thing SA has tons of. There isn't exactly 20 FGAs to go around for one player to be hogging up like there is for Ellis on his once again sub .500 losing team.

Or do you have no idea how teams with a deep perimeter work? Nobody gets 20 FGAs in SA. Even Tim Duncan at his peak never did. But please, inform us as to how being in SA pumps up Manu's scoring, because to anyone who pays attention, being in SA actually drops players' scoring down since there are more options, which means less shots.

Which again, is the only reason Ellis has a higher PPG. Manu's always been more efficienct than Ellis, every single season. This isn't news.

Stop it already, You're embarassing these other fools that are saying Ellis>Manu

Please show me when an established star switched teams and had his PPG actually go up.

It's a well-known fact that stars on shitty teams get more PPG because they get more shots. When they go to better teams, their PPG goes down. Why? Their FGAs go down. Those two thing are directly related.

Meanwhile, an established star switching teams does not magically garner a massive 8.6% raise in scoring efficiency. That is unprecidented.

So you tell me what's more likely. Monta Ellis switching teams and suddenly start shooting 9% above his career scoring efficiency, or Monta Ellis switching teams to a winning ballclub and having his PPG drop due to lowered FGAs on a winning ballclub that has scoring in more than 2-3 places.

We arguing field goal percentages or ppg? Of course the Big 3's PPG took a hit, I'm talking about fg%

Take KG, in 12 seasons as a Timberwolves, obviously being the man and though he did have a few all star teammates nobody was the caliber of what he has now, he eclipsed 50%FG 3 times. Since coming to Boston, he has every season. Why? More offensive threats = the less the defense can key in on you.

I'm not saying Manu would such as a first option with an ultimate green light and NBDL caliber teammates, just that his fg% would take a dive, regardless of whether or not he gets more looks up and thus increases his PPG. He'd see more doubleteams, traps, junk defenses, etc. geared particularly to stop him.

When you play with Duncan, and Parker, and even Richard Jefferson has been an all star, everything's a little easier offensively.

Another example is the with LeBron Cavs versus the without LeBron Cavs. Those same dudes who were criticial pieces to a 60+ win team, all of a sudden can't do shit without LeBron drawing the defense and setting them up all the time. Next to LeBron, didn't Hickson look like a future all star? Now what's he doing? 11 and 5 in more minutes, but a 10%FG drop because he's not just dive cutting and catching lob passes.

I think it's BS as well, but as long as all-star selections are labeled as some sort of indicator of success then people will argue its qualifications are similar to that of an MVP (good numbers on good team).

An all-star selection should just be like a dunk contest selection or 3 point contest selection. For three quarters or more its not even taken seriously.